Caution, fairness are keys

Published: Saturday, September 7, 2013 at 10:35 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, September 7, 2013 at 10:35 p.m.

In recent days, members of Congress and others have used local appearances to talk about the future of the National Flood Insurance Program.

While insurance might not seem like the most captivating of subjects, this issue is one that will weigh heavily on our immediate futures.

As they are currently set, the “reforms” to the flood insurance program could price many local home and business owners out of the ability to purchase flood insurance and threaten to wipe away much of our real estate value.

FEMA is implementing a system of premiums based entirely on the risk of flooding each property faces. It is doing so as it updates the flood maps that determine those risk factors — maps that many locals argue ignore some of our most important flood protection.

As our congressional delegation works with FEMA to install a more reasonable set of changes, two ideals should carry the day: fairness and caution.

In fairness, the federal government should not change the rules underlying the insurance program midstream.

People who have had flood insurance for years should not be forced into skyrocketing price increases by short-sighted and misguided policies to make the program viable.

If the government makes the program too expensive for the very people who need it most, it will become almost useless.

And worse, because so many people are required to carry flood insurance as conditions of their mortgages, they could be forced out of home ownership.

Worse still, since the next owner would be forced to purchase extremely expensive insurance as well, their homes or businesses could lose much of their value. That is a staggering blow to most people, whose primary long-term investments are in their homes.

It would be unfair to impose these colossal price increases on people who have done nothing more than play by the rules.

So fairness must be a guide.

So too must caution.

Caution will dictate that any approach to flood insurance use a strategy of imposing necessary change in a deliberate fashion that allows the people most affected by it to adapt to the change as it happens.

Instead of imposing across-the-board, wildly disruptive change, the plan must consider the lives and livelihoods of those it could hurt.

Change to the present system may be necessary for the flood insurance program to maintain its long-term ability to protect people’s homes and businesses. Destroying the value of those assets, though, would defeat the purpose of the program.

Clearly, the current changes must be put on hold and rethought with coastal residents throughout the nation in mind. Fairness and caution must take a prominent role in any future planning.

Editorials represent the opinions of the newspaper, not of any individual.

<p>In recent days, members of Congress and others have used local appearances to talk about the future of the National Flood Insurance Program.</p><p>While insurance might not seem like the most captivating of subjects, this issue is one that will weigh heavily on our immediate futures.</p><p>As they are currently set, the “reforms” to the flood insurance program could price many local home and business owners out of the ability to purchase flood insurance and threaten to wipe away much of our real estate value.</p><p>FEMA is implementing a system of premiums based entirely on the risk of flooding each property faces. It is doing so as it updates the flood maps that determine those risk factors — maps that many locals argue ignore some of our most important flood protection.</p><p>As our congressional delegation works with FEMA to install a more reasonable set of changes, two ideals should carry the day: fairness and caution.</p><p>In fairness, the federal government should not change the rules underlying the insurance program midstream.</p><p>People who have had flood insurance for years should not be forced into skyrocketing price increases by short-sighted and misguided policies to make the program viable.</p><p>If the government makes the program too expensive for the very people who need it most, it will become almost useless.</p><p>And worse, because so many people are required to carry flood insurance as conditions of their mortgages, they could be forced out of home ownership.</p><p>Worse still, since the next owner would be forced to purchase extremely expensive insurance as well, their homes or businesses could lose much of their value. That is a staggering blow to most people, whose primary long-term investments are in their homes.</p><p>It would be unfair to impose these colossal price increases on people who have done nothing more than play by the rules.</p><p>So fairness must be a guide.</p><p>So too must caution.</p><p>Caution will dictate that any approach to flood insurance use a strategy of imposing necessary change in a deliberate fashion that allows the people most affected by it to adapt to the change as it happens.</p><p>Instead of imposing across-the-board, wildly disruptive change, the plan must consider the lives and livelihoods of those it could hurt.</p><p>Change to the present system may be necessary for the flood insurance program to maintain its long-term ability to protect people's homes and businesses. Destroying the value of those assets, though, would defeat the purpose of the program.</p><p>Clearly, the current changes must be put on hold and rethought with coastal residents throughout the nation in mind. Fairness and caution must take a prominent role in any future planning.</p><p>Editorials represent the opinions of the newspaper, not of any individual.</p>